View Full Version : 8-Years of Civilization Remaining
Success_Machine
06-07-02, 07:16 AM
Global warming will never be a problem because oil is running out. Check the BP energy stats website below, you can download a MS Excel spreadsheet with all the necessary data to do your own calculations (if you want).
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy/world_stat_rev/oil/reserves.asp
Or you can just take my word for it that the so-called Global Warming problem will never be noticeable, since worldwide oil reserves will be completely exhausted in less than 32 years, assuming production trends can be maintained. At least that's what the steady-state theory says, but oilfield yields tend to follow a bell-curve of production over their lifetime, referred to as the Hubbert Peak.
The Hubbert Peak model says oilwell production will reach a peak, and then decline exponentially forever after that. Domestic oil production in the United States has already demonstrated this pattern, reaching a peak in 1970, and declining 31.4% in the last 32 years despite oil exploration efforts. Publications from the Hubbert Center (Colorado School of Mines) predict that worldwide peak oil production will occur ~2009 AD, with a decrease in yields of 3 percent per year after that, no matter how many new oilwells we drill. At that rate world oil production will be:
- down 17% by 2015 AD
- down 30% by 2020 AD
- down 50% by 2032 AD
- down 72% by 2050 AD
- down 90% by 2084 AD
Notice it drops sharply in the near-term, immediately following the peak! Such is the nature of exponential decay. Once oil production reaches a peak and starts declining there will be no question about what is happening. In fact there will only be a year or two at most to react before the economy becomes terminal. There will be no need, or time, to debate the issue, like there is for global warming. The only important questions are:
1. When will peak production occur? and
2. What do we do when it does?
Dick Cheney predicted that world energy consumption will rise by 30-60% by 2020 AD. If that prediction applies to oil consumption specifically then something does not jive. One cannot increase consumption when supply lines are failing, so one of the predictions is incorrect.
Nevertheless prior to peak production there is nothing we can do but assume Dick Cheney is correct. Why? Because we don't know exactly when peak production will occur, AND, there is no sustainable transportation system that can mix with the current one safely. It is too dangerous to use small hydrogen-fueled cars on the road with big 18-wheel diesel trucks, or even big trucks and SUVs. The changeover to the sustainable system will likely be abrupt, involving a separation of large 18-wheelers and personal cars to their own exclusive roadways. The intervening months will bring emergency measures to house and feed people that are put out of work by the fuel shortage. In my opinion the transition period will be a long, long, LONG couple of years. Many people will end up doing manual labor, perhaps living in dormitory-style residences to minimize housing costs.
Recessions have occurred about every 10-12 years, meaning that the next one ~2014 AD could coincide with long-lasting oil shortage. Indeed, the next recession could last 10 years (not six months like the current one) as people constantly try to cope with sharply dropping oil supplies and increasing expenses.
Some countries have set aside certain streets exclusively for public buses, but none have made any accommodations for tiny motorized vehicles and bicycles. Most have the attitude that bicycle lanes are more than cyclists deserve. Besides making certain transit routes exclusive to heavy versus light vehicles, it is unknown how to prevent the economic catastrophe from happening, nor how to deal with it when it happens.
Everyone knows that small, lightweight cars get better fuel economy, and if you want to change the nature of automobiles, you have to start by changing the nature of the transportation infrastructure, the primary enabling technology of the automobile.
You say that oil production will decrease and that it will be a big problem because the needed quantity will increase, no?
I think that human kind don't need to use so much oils, so we could have a longer time ("8-years of civilization remaining") to remain. Technologies are evolving so fast that we will soon don't need so much oil than some could think. Electicity could be made with "sun-panels" (no need of oil for cars or for power plants) and synthetic clothes could be made with other materials (no need of oil for nylon).
Of course, nowaday, I don't think that we can stop all oil consumation, and I don't know if we will be able to stop using it in future, but I know that we can use less oil than we are doing.
Hope that politics will understand it and change or policy as soon as possible...
goofyfish
06-07-02, 01:13 PM
Anyone remember the Hemp Car project from last year? Some guys were going to drive across the continent... did they make it? Did they start?
Peace.
Oil production is a good thing to be concerned about. But many solutions are around the corner. If oil production declines and consumption rises by 2020 - a worldwide recession will wake the people and everybody will start working on those alternative resources. Here are some:
1. Stop driving to work. There are only 10 million businesses in the country (USA). Most can people can work from home. Even 10% working from home and raising 5% per year is a lot of oil, road and energy savings...USA should lead the effort because we are the biggest energy users even though most factories are gone to China.
2. High energy magnetism: Put some serious money into it so that by 2020, we can have our first 2400MW fusion power plant.
3. Smaller bodies: There is no reason for humans to grow to the size of dinosaurs. A smaller five foot body has same functions and intelligence as a seven footer. Modify gene therapy to achive this which in turn save a lot of food and energy consumption...
4. Population Control: Be serious to zero growth
5. Energy from renewable organics: Start with hemp, corn etc but the real solution see to produce plants that can grow in sea to reduce CO2 and provide energy....again genetic engineering. We have very large seas...
In the end, by 2100, we have to have Fusion and anti-matter reactors to produce energy that could last us for 3000 years until we manage microscopic singularity for energy production....
Originally posted by kmguru
1. Stop driving to work. There are only 10 million businesses in the country (USA). Most can people can work from home. Even 10% working from home and raising 5% per year is a lot of oil, road and energy savings...USA should lead the effort because we are the biggest energy users even though most factories are gone to China.
I totaly agree with you ! We should all try to save energy by working at home or using bus. I also agree when you say that USA are the biggest energy user and I don't speak about polution :rolleyes: .
2. High energy magnetism: Put some serious money into it so that by 2020, we can have our first 2400MW fusion power plant.
A fusion plant in less than 20 years ? That would be great but I don't think so : at first because of money :( and then because it's a very dangerous techologie (I mean that nuclear power plants were dangerous too and we used it before being able to control it fully, but fusion power is more hard to control : is that not the sun power ?)
3. Smaller bodies: There is no reason for humans to grow to the size of dinosaurs. A smaller five foot body has same functions and intelligence as a seven footer. Modify gene therapy to achive this which in turn save a lot of food and energy consumption...
That's an idea... but who will decide to begin ?
"I want my son to have a 1m60 body, please. Then he will eat less than he would do if he was 1m80" (only if he is not obese, then he would eat a lot too)
4. Population Control: Be serious to zero growth
Two children per couple ? Such as in China ? lol
How could you do it ? This kind of law is crazy ! How can someone say to someone else "you will only have too children !" ?
In some countries, population is already getting down or will do it in e few decades. Couples in these country don't have 2 children per couple so if they don't want to have more babies, other couples should have right to do it. Of course earth population should not increase too much, but it should not decrease. And if you think about energy, as there will have lots of it in future (with fusion power, sun panels...) we will be ok. (I hope so...:confused: ).
Two children per couple ? Such as in China ? lol
How could you do it ? This kind of law is crazy ! How can someone say to someone else "you will only have too children !" ?
With modern technology, I think we can choose the baby's sex. So a son and a daughter should work for everybody. Rather than making laws, one can setup exponentially higher tax and other incentives and disincentives to get there.
Most poor, and uneducated people have a lot more kids including in third world countries. I have noticed, In India, educated and upper-middle class to lower rich class have 2 to 3 kids while the poor pump out half a dozen....
I think, Muslims and Mormons encourage "be fruitful and multiply" like crazy....
bobbapink
06-09-02, 12:32 PM
Oil depletion - opinions vary as to how long existing reserves will last. Some put it at 30 years, others at 300. Doesn't really matter. When the oil runs out, it will not do so instantly. It will occur over a period of time marked by rising oil prices. The rising prices will motivate people to seek other sources. Fuel from grain and hemp products is one [unlikely] source, although not a grerat one IMO. Another is a remergence of the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy coupled with existing and emerging electric automobile technology will fill in the gaps nicely.
Fussion - don't look for it anytime soon. It's been just 20 years away for the last 50 years and will remain just 20 years away probably for the next 100 years. It really ain't all that great a good deal anyway IMO. The technology required to produce, harness and contain it is not only going to be far more expensive that fission technology, i seriously doubt it's going to represent much gain in the way of safety either, at least over the use of nuclear.
Solar - Possible. yes. but not probable in terms of large scale usage. The technology is going to have to advance quite a bit and the price per kwh is going to have to come down. Not really even needed if we use nuclear.
Wind - same with solar. Not even need if we use nuclear.
There is a new technology that will work if we can harness it. It will solve most of the problems.
www.blacklightpower.com
Hope it works....if not....there will be others....may be I will revive the cold fusion....
bobbapink
06-09-02, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by kmguru
There is a new technology that will work if we can harness it. It will solve most of the problems.
www.blacklightpower.com
Hope it works....if not....there will be others....may be I will revive the cold fusion....
It isn't a new technology, it's an old con. IOW, a fraud, a fake, a sham. He may harness a few bucks out of it if he can find some suckers.
Welcome to sciforums, bobbapink.
I looked at your profile and find that you have been here for quite some time. Longer than I have in fact. However, I do not recall ever welcoming you. So I would take a moment to do so.
Originally posted by bobbapink
It isn't a new technology, it's an old con. IOW, a fraud, a fake, a sham. He may harness a few bucks out of it if he can find some suckers.
How did NASA and the University got suckered into it? You know something they dont? You better let them know....
bobbapink
06-10-02, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by kmguru
How did NASA and the University got suckered into it? You know something they dont? You better let them know....
NASA gets "suckered" into lots of things - this (might) be one example. An anti-gravity "device" is another. As to the "Universities", well, some "universities" are smarter than others - donchathink. To what university do you refer?
But as to specifics - how do you know NASA got suckered into this particular con? Same for the university?
Because the website said so?
bobbapink
06-10-02, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by wet1
Welcome to sciforums, bobbapink.
I looked at your profile and find that you have been here for quite some time. Longer than I have in fact. However, I do not recall ever welcoming you. So I would take a moment to do so.
Thanks for the belayed welcome wet1!
Originally posted by bobbapink
But as to specifics - how do you know NASA got suckered into this particular con? Same for the university?
What! there is no Google in your neck of the woods! :D
See the posting in astronomy section under Blacklight engine
Because the website said so?
YES, the NASA website....
Originally posted by DR EVYL
So do they paint the inside of the capsule in flourescent colors, and then the astronauts have to do bong hits before they blast into space?
Sounds groovy to me....
A fusion plant in less than 20 years ? That would be great but I don't think so : at first because of money and then because it's a very dangerous techologie (I mean that nuclear power plants were dangerous too and we used it before being able to control it fully, but fusion power is more hard to control : is that not the sun power ?)
This is not a problem with fusion. If a fusion reactor were to melt down, it would destroy the containment vessel, and the subsequent cooling would stop the reaction. A suitable buffer area(if the scaredy-cats really demand it) would probably be one mile, and little or none of the stuff around this area would be affected by a small plant going. Radioactivity is almost nil. The problem with fusion is containing the plasma; we can't do it for more than a few seconds at a time with current technology.
bobbapink
06-11-02, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by kmguru
What! there is no Google in your neck of the woods! :D
See the posting in astronomy section under Blacklight engine
Because the website said so?
YES, the NASA website....
Actually, what you're talking about is the NIAC. National Institute for Advanced Concepts. There motto is
"Don't let your preoccupation with reality stifle your imagination"
And they utter this motto while happily spending your tax dollars. They do not, to my knowledge, invest or support any company or inventer but they will fund the testing of claims from select crackpot/crooked companies or inventers. Blacklight power is but one of the nutty claims they have tested. Another includes about $600,000 studying the gravity shield claims of Russian scientist, Eugene Podkletnov.
Anyway, Blacklights central claim is that there exists a state of the hydrogen atom that is "below the ground state". And i've got some real estate south of the south pole.
So, have you tried yourself and failed or is that something you believe is in the realm of perpetual machine?
Is that same for cold fusion?
bobbapink
06-11-02, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by kmguru
So, have you tried yourself and failed or is that something you believe is in the realm of perpetual machine?
Is that same for cold fusion?
Regarding Blacklight - yes - it is something in "realm" of perpetural motion in that it is, given the current postulates of physics, a state lower than the ground state is mathmatically impossible. For a good explaination of why this is so, please visit:
http://www.freeenergies.org/bl/bwt/z/hydrino/hydrino.htm
As to cold fusion, I think that is a different situation. While all attempts to reproduce the results claimed by Ponds and Fleischmann have failed, it doesn't mean that cold fusion isn't possible - just that this particular implementation of it is. IOW, it isn't mathmatically impossible (so far as i know) but only technologically impossible...so far. Therefore, we may someday get there, but i'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by bobbapink
As to cold fusion, I think that is a different situation. While all attempts to reproduce the results claimed by Ponds and Fleischmann have failed, it doesn't mean that cold fusion isn't possible - just that this particular implementation of it is. IOW, it isn't mathmatically impossible (so far as i know) but only technologically impossible...so far. Therefore, we may someday get there, but i'm not holding my breath.
I am glad you think that way. I worked with a brilliant PhD in ChemEngineering. Together we did some amazing stuff to suck magnesium metal out of salt water in a large scale. He said - theoretically it is not only possible but several patents have been filed and holding. What I think is the problem is the manufacturing of the electrodes in an atomic configuration. The day will come when we can use nano technology and create a structure that produces the intended result. Ponds got lucky only on a specific electrode and could not repeat them successfully with others.
On the subject of the oil shortage, there is a relatively new tech that allows us to convert gas from the oil field into gasoline. At present it is being setup to be used in foreign countries where there is no natural gas infrastructure. Instead of venting the gas, as was done in the past, it is now well on it's way to being reclaimed. This is both extra profit for the oil companies and the reducing of green house gases in the same technology.
Here in the states there are many gas reserves that have not been drilled because there is less profit in gas and the piplines remain saturated at higher than normal pressures because production exceeds use. Another area that has been drilled less is the areas where high H2S is present. H2S requires a "sweetening" process before it can be handled. This process is expensive and most companines do not want to pay the price nor take the risks assoicated with a poison gas.
Reduction in the ramping tend of increased use will be the key to how long we have oil for use. There are other possibilities if we can get into space. I think everyone knows I am a space nut and follow tends and discoveries. Hyrdocarbons, very simular to oil exist in aboundance in space and on planetary bodies, such as moons. It could be a source of oil in the future. How far in the future is the question. I doubt that it would be 30 years in developing. I would think that it would take much longer to set up an infrastructure to handle the material from source to end products for the consumer. But as I have mentioned in the astromony forum we have yet to develop a decent propulsion system.
I seemed to wandered from my original topic so I think it is time to stop...
Success_Machine
07-01-02, 10:50 AM
Here is an article in Oil News about the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and their oil supply forecasts.
Oil News (http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=13797901&template=oil/indexsearch.txt&index=recent)
They say that oil will never run out, but that it will be harder and harder to increase yields until we reach the "Hubbert Peak", after which point no matter how hard we try oil supply will decrease. They present this chart showing similar trends for all oil sources, including natural gas liquids (NGL) from which propane is made for fleet vehicles and such, for example forklifts, ice-resurfacers, motor homes & trailers, barbeques, etc., and butane for cigarette lighters, and campfires.
Chart Showing Hubbert Peak and Subsequent Deline Prediction (http://www.isv.uu.se/iwood2002/PressRelease/FigPR.ppt)
Using online data provided by British Petroleum in my original post, I used a spreadsheet to determine that if current trends continue the world community will consume every last drop of proven oil reserves in about 30 years. However, because oilfields in 50 countries have already demonstrated the Hubbert Peak pattern (similar to a bell-curve), then one would expect that the supply lines will peak and begin to decrease in much less than 30 years. The ASPO network is predicting this will occur around 2010. Since after this time it will be harder and harder to get the next barrel of oil out of the oilfields, the proven reserves will essentially last forever, so the 30-year prediction is meaningless.
If by 2050 fuel supplies are half of what they are in 2010, will there be half as many cars on the road? Or will their engines have half the horsepower? Or will speed limits be cut by 30 percent to reduce kinetic energy of cars?
What do you think?
Do you know that researchers are retiring on photovoltaic cell research. I think we are commercially at 12% efficiency for the last 30 years, but saying we will soon have 65% efficiency....
BTW, if oil would disappear in 8 years, all the oil companies would be panic-ing now. So far, not a word....in their annual report...
Success_Machine
07-01-02, 11:34 AM
Even after the Hubbert Peak, and subsequent crash, oil production eventually starts to level off, so even though supply continues to decline forever oil companies will still be reporting reserves of hundreds of billions of barrels! Ironic isn't it?
Also, my "straight line" calculations show oil reserves running dry in 2032, or shortly thereafter, which doesn't take into account Hubbert Peak pattern of production, it simply assumes we continue to consume at the same rate until the last drop is pumped out. US Gov't predicts oil supply will peak in 2036, which almost coincides with when I thought it would run out completely. Could there have been a miscommunication between oil experts and politicians on the difference between "peak oil supply" and "oil depletion" ? It would be a hell of a thing if confusion about semantics cause people & gov'ts to be taken by surprise!
ASPO predicts that by 2050 (I'll be an old man) cumulative oil production worldwide will drop to just half of peak production expected in 2010. But many oilfields are already past peak, adn the effects on local economies have been devastating. Here are some interesting examples:
Top BP official says North Slope gas not competitive (http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20020629140.5_f1f80005715e4ffd)
North Sea Oilfield peaked 2 years ago and production is decreasing by 11 percent per year (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/northsea.htm)
===========================================
Quote from article#1:
"Alaska is now a mature and much smaller oil province," he said, noting that oil production today is half what it was in 1988. To compensate, London-based BP has cut its Anchorage work force by 20 percent and contractors by 75 percent, he said.
Operating costs per barrel of oil in Alaska are 20 percent higher than BP's worldwide average, and pipeline and shipping costs are four times the average, Browne said. That's the effect of moving much less oil that the trans-Alaska pipeline and North Slope production equipment were designed to handle, he said.
===========================================
Interesting! Will the cost of fuel worldwide quadruple by 2050 ?!! During the OPEC Oil Embargo, there was a great deal of interest in finding an alternative to gasoline, since in a period of roughly three years, the price of unleaded gasoline rose from $0.69/gal to $1.42/gal.
People were feeling like we were being held hostage in our own country because the sharp increases in gas prices also meant increased prices for food and other necessities, due to increasing transportation costs.
There was also the inconvenience of gas rationing (odd/even day buying at filling stations), longer waiting lines, and short tempers which in a few cases, led to gunpoint violence at the gas pumps.
That's what happens if the price of gas doubles! There isn't even any point in switching to more efficient systems, because they will be considered grossly inefficient long before the end of their service life. You thought Y2K was bad. As soon as someone says "Hubbert Peak", I think I will simply switch over to a renewable homebrew fuel, and perhaps even build my own car to ensure that fuel consumption is low enough that I can manufacture sufficient quantities. Automakers are not yet making a product that is up to the challenge.
Success_Machine
07-01-02, 11:55 AM
This isn't even a car. It's a recumbant bike manufactured by Greenspeed in Australia. And it isn't even a one-of-a-kind, they have a whole line of "fully faired" recumbant trikes. Look, it's beautiful !!!
http://www.greenspeed.com.au/RedReflexa384.JPG
Now look at this piece of crap made by Honda...
http://photoserver1.trader.ca/autotrader/photos/large/2002/06-28/trc/06-28-02trc33-05.jpeg
You could add an engine and some perks to the Greenspeed for about the same price as the Honda. Which looks better?
Success_Machine
07-01-02, 01:30 PM
It is not impossible to build your own car, modify the engine to run on multiple fuel types, and then make your own fuels at home -- although it would be a serious workshop project. I could definitely build a car that not only gets 200 mpg but runs on 4 or 5 different fuels interchangeably, a few of which would be non-renewable (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane), and a few of which would be homebrewed renewable fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel). Once you do a modification, you can do it again and again, depending on fuel availability. If zipping from A to B is the only purpose of the car, there is no reason not to go for it, just stay away from high-traffic areas and it should be perfectly safe. Here are some pertinent links:
Portable 90 Amp Stick Welder (http://www.krazearc.com/90amp.html)
Welding Instructions for different alloys (http://www.weldingengineer.com/)
Recumbant trikes you can build at home (http://www.iesales.com/)
Collapsable Bicycle Trailers for Extra Cargo or Passenger Carrying Capacity up to 500 pounds (http://www.cycletote.com/)
Briggs & Stratton 8 horsepower Intek Model 20 Supermileage Engine (http://www.briggsracing.com/racing_engines/sae_intek.html)
US Carburetion Engine Tri-Fuel Conversion Kits for Gasoline, Propane & Natural Gas (http://www.uscarburetion.com/)
General information on propane fuel (http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/lpg_general.html)
Home refuelling appliance for Compressed Natural Gas or Compressed Hydrogen (http://www.fuelmaker.com/Research/HomeRefueling.htm)
Conversion and Testing of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicle (http://www.science.edu/tech/h81001.htm)
Hazards of compressed gases (http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/compressed/compress.html)
Safer Liquefication Process for Hydrogen On Demand Fuel (http://www.millenniumcell.com/index.pl)
Hydrogen production, storage and conversion equipment (http://www.fuelcellstore.com)
How to modify your engine to run on ethanol (http://terrasol.home.igc.org/alky/alky-contents.htm)
Make your own ethanol fuel (http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/)
Make your own biodiesel fuel (http://www.webconx.com/making_biodiesel.htm)
I'm already most of the way there! I think I'll call it "Omnivore". Animals that are omnivores tend to be more successful. :-)
http://www.georgetrosley.com/stillcrankin1.JPG
If you can get a car like that to get 100 miles to the gallon, you'll be rich.
And did you know that they've been saying this about he food supply for over a hundred years?
Success_Machine
07-04-02, 08:50 AM
Which car are you referring to, the recumbant bike, or the cartoon?
The cartoon.:D
By the way, people have been saying that "food consumption will exceed production in X number of years(generally less than twenty or so)" for over a century.
Success_Machine
07-05-02, 10:27 AM
That's because petroleum-based fertilizers & pesticides have increased crop yields per acre, and petroleum-fueled farm machinery has automated the harvesting & distribution of food products.
Petrolem is nothing but Hydrogen and Carbon. We have plenty of both. Everytime you burn something organic, you get carbon. So, someone has to find a way to economically combine the two....
Success_Machine
07-05-02, 01:43 PM
This is like the space program, people think that if they work at it long enough, eventually we'll find a way to get further, faster, cheaper. But the chemistry of propellants doesn't change, no matter now inventive we are.
Like cars, we have to work within the limits of physics and chemistry. When the petroleum runs out, we must design vehicles to use renewable fuels, in the quantities in which they are available. If homebrew is the most economical, then that might amount to just a few liters of fuel produced per capita per week. Small cars designed in proportion to the load they are carrying would be far more efficient than vehicles vehicles that can travel six, tow a boat, and haul luggage, but most of the time carries only 1 person to-and-from work with a bagged lunch.
I know what I am saying makes perfect sense. But it won't happen until there really is an oil shortage, and people forget about the ego and the social status that stops them from buying a tiny car and homebrew setup.
And so how will we haul cargo on a few liters per week?
We have gone through this over and over in this forum:
1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road.
2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe.
3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car.
4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car.
5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI.
6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots.
7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets.
8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude.
9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems.
10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas.
So, the answer, gentleman, is a fusion reactor or a direct nuclear to electric generator.
Originally posted by kmguru
So, the answer, gentleman, is a fusion reactor or a direct nuclear to electric generator.
What is the current status of the following technologies?
[list=1]
wind energy (I've heard it's in the $.04 per kw/h range -- isn't it becoming a "crop" for many farmers and ranchers?)
methane conversion (again, can be cultivated as a by-product of ranching)
ethanol power (again, can be cultivated from farming of corn)
geothermal power (anyone have a good volcano for rent?)
solar from orbit (cleaner access to sun would make photo-voltaics more effecient and the energy could be microwaved to earth)
[/list=1]
I've seen a number of things mentioned on this forum, but I don't think I've seen these mentioned (but I could be wrong ;) ). Before you dive into the nuclear solution, there are these options.
Success_Machine
07-07-02, 10:07 AM
1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road.
-->> Use concrete dividers, more than we use now. Big trucks are already banned from residential streets. It's mostly just highways and freeways with long straight stretches, easy to divide into truck traffic and small car traffic. Or we could just wait, in 15-20 years the cost of fuel may be so high that traffic will thin out considerably, making it much safer for very small cars.
2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe.
-->> That's a choice. People could easily decide that it is not economical or feasible to live so far from work. When so many people start moving back into the city there will be a huge increase in the cost of rent, and anyone that owns real estate will be rich (probably are already).
3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car.
-->> Borax is cool. But I an skeptical of its weight-% hydrogen storage capacity. I emailed the people at http://www.millenniumcell.com and asked them this exact question, but haven't yet received a response. FYI compressed hydrogen storage cylinders can now store up to 11.3 wt-% hydrogen at 5000 psi. It's not that great, and compressed gases are dangerous, but from what I've seen in the publications, compressed gas technology is way ahead of others, such as metal hydrides, glass spheres, etc. Another concert with Borax (rather sodium borohydride) is that it might require alot of energy to produce, even after the hydrogen is produced. Use of hydrogen alone would require smaller cars and immensely greater fuel economy, otherwise we will have to double the number of nuclear power plants just to make fuel. But making Borax will add to this energy consumption. The hydrogen storage capacity of Borax fuel is still unknown to me. To make it affordable we might just use hydrogen alone. In fact, at the scale we could make this fuel for the mass market, it might be easier to make ethanol.
4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car.
-->> Examples?
5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI.
-->> Range and recharge time are the problems. Smaller cars aside, people are not willing to give up convenience either.
6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots.
-->> Check the ITER website (http://www.iter.org), there actually is a current fusion research effort underway. The timeline is basically another 50 years. I personally don't think it will ever happen because, while fusion produces little radioactive spent fuel, the reactor chamber is activated. So after 20 years of service, you get 30,000 tonnes of radioactive waste, of which 6000 tonnes is long-lived (>100 years) and must be stored in a geological repository. That's the expected waste from a single fusion plant, while the total combined annual waste from all the world's fission plants (230+ powerplants) is just 10,000 tonnes. The scientists at ITER are trying to find materials that are conditioned against long-term activation, but they aren't there yet, and don't expect to be for 30+ years. They should tackle that problem first IMO, but they aren't.
7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets.
-->> There are lots of EVs. Hybrid cars can be considered EVs. Check the automotive websites. Again the problem with EVs is poor range and inconvenient recharging of batteries. There is also a nasty rumor going around, which I don't know is true, that the batteries will need to be replaced every 4 years at a cost of $5000+.
8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude.
-->> Nuclear energy comes from radioactive decay, when an atom's nucleus spits out the extra neutron or a proton that it didn't need. The particle collides with other molecules, losing speed, and giving off heat. If there are enough radioactive atoms close together, then decay neutrons can cause other atoms to decay, giving off more neutrons, causing still more atoms to decay, and causing a runaway chain reaction. The amount of heat created can be enormous, and can vaporize water to drive steam generators. How do you propose we convert this "nuclear energy" directly into electricity?
9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems.
-->> Parabolic solar concentrators are the least expensive solar power. Photovoltaics have always been expensive. Often the solar modules are augmented with a wind turbine for low-light days. Solar and wind for residential electricity are usually only economical off-grid, out in the boonies, where it would be more expensive to extend power lines from the utility to the home than to install solar.
10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas.
-->> This is why I say that reducing energy consumption is the only way. Unfortunately people will refuse to acknowledge this TRUTH and will be forced to when the oil runs out. Oil reserves are finite. And you can't just start making your own fuel and expect to be driving the same car. Smaller cars, lower speeds, multiple fuels (ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel).
=========================================
=========================================
=========================================
wind energy (I've heard it's in the $.04 per kw/h range -- isn't it becoming a "crop" for many farmers and ranchers?)
-->> Yup. Wind is cheap where you can get it. But usually you have to commit to a 20-year contract, because it takes > 9 years to pay for the tower & nacelle installation on electricity sales alone.
methane conversion (again, can be cultivated as a by-product of ranching)
ethanol power (again, can be cultivated from farming of corn)
-->> Ethanol from homebrew alcohol is probably the best bet, or biodiesel from vegetable oil. But these fuels come from plants, and photosynthesis is much less than 1-percent efficient in converting sunlight to chemical energy. So to use these renewable fuels in cars on a large scale will also require a great reduction in the size and speed of cars.
geothermal power (anyone have a good volcano for rent?)
-->> As it turns out, geothermal isn't renewable. It's environmentally friendly for sure, but eventually the hot magma that is heating steam for the generating plant cools off, and is no longer useful for power generation. This has been shown to be so in several places in the world (I forget where, but it's true).
solar from orbit (cleaner access to sun would make photo-voltaics more effecient and the energy could be microwaved to earth)
-->> Solar Power Satellites would be enormously costly to launch into orbit, far more than they would ever make in revenues. They are still too expensive when you move them closer to the Sun (taking advantage of the inverse square law of radiation), and try to beam energy to Earth all the way from an SPS orbiting Mercury !!
Smaller cars. Lower speed limits. Homebrew alcohol. It'll happen.
I have to read this thread all through yet, but as I seem tht this is about worries about lack of oil..
There was so much worries and uncertanty when coals started to run short in Europe in the 19th century (end).
We have all what it needs to create biofuel (spirt) or hydrogen fuel cells. The only thing that is slowing down this is government funded oil companies not allowing and fearing the new technologies.
My response to your reponse to my response...:D
1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road.
-->> Use concrete dividers, more than we use now. Big trucks are already banned from residential streets. It's mostly just highways and freeways with long straight stretches, easy to divide into truck traffic and small car traffic. Or we could just wait, in 15-20 years the cost of fuel may be so high that traffic will thin out considerably, making it much safer for very small cars.
How much that will cost? who will pay for that? The poor voters whose tax is already too high?
2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe.
-->> That's a choice. People could easily decide that it is not economical or feasible to live so far from work. When so many people start moving back into the city there will be a huge increase in the cost of rent, and anyone that owns real estate will be rich (probably are already).
I talked about this with wet1 in another thread. In California area, people who live in north go south to work and vice versa. The working and living system is not optimal. Only in a Communist planned system like Russia that can be made possible. Anyone wants Communism? ...not happening...
3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car.
-->> Borax is cool. But I an skeptical of its weight-% hydrogen storage capacity. I emailed the people at http://www.millenniumcell.com and asked them this exact question, but haven't yet received a response. FYI compressed hydrogen storage cylinders can now store up to 11.3 wt-% hydrogen at 5000 psi. It's not that great, and compressed gases are dangerous, but from what I've seen in the publications, compressed gas technology is way ahead of others, such as metal hydrides, glass spheres, etc. Another concert with Borax (rather sodium borohydride) is that it might require alot of energy to produce, even after the hydrogen is produced. Use of hydrogen alone would require smaller cars and immensely greater fuel economy, otherwise we will have to double the number of nuclear power plants just to make fuel. But making Borax will add to this energy consumption. The hydrogen storage capacity of Borax fuel is still unknown to me. To make it affordable we might just use hydrogen alone. In fact, at the scale we could make this fuel for the mass market, it might be easier to make ethanol.
Chryseler-Merced is developing one. The US Borax is funding other research too. May be we use the 715 nuclear powerplants to convert water into Hydrogen and pipe it to major cities...
4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car.
-->> Examples?
Like any liquid high density fuel and oxidizer separated to keep safe until use.
5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI.
-->> Range and recharge time are the problems. Smaller cars aside, people are not willing to give up convenience either.
No push to develop cheap storage technology. Whatever happened to polymer batteries?
6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots.
-->> Check the ITER website (http://www.iter.org), there actually is a current fusion research effort underway. The timeline is basically another 50 years. I personally don't think it will ever happen because, while fusion produces little radioactive spent fuel, the reactor chamber is activated. So after 20 years of service, you get 30,000 tonnes of radioactive waste, of which 6000 tonnes is long-lived (>100 years) and must be stored in a geological repository. That's the expected waste from a single fusion plant, while the total combined annual waste from all the world's fission plants (230+ powerplants) is just 10,000 tonnes. The scientists at ITER are trying to find materials that are conditioned against long-term activation, but they aren't there yet, and don't expect to be for 30+ years. They should tackle that problem first IMO, but they aren't.
The date keep moving since 1975. Why is it we keep exchanging heat exchangers in 18 months and not 36 months by making it thicker and modifying the alloy content?
7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets.
-->> There are lots of EVs. Hybrid cars can be considered EVs. Check the automotive websites. Again the problem with EVs is poor range and inconvenient recharging of batteries. There is also a nasty rumor going around, which I don't know is true, that the batteries will need to be replaced every 4 years at a cost of $5000+.
No serious effort means, I dont see any mass transit vans, buses, hotel vans, business vans on EV? How many hotel vans that take you to and from airport on EV?
8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude.
-->> Nuclear energy comes from radioactive decay, when an atom's nucleus spits out the extra neutron or a proton that it didn't need. The particle collides with other molecules, losing speed, and giving off heat. If there are enough radioactive atoms close together, then decay neutrons can cause other atoms to decay, giving off more neutrons, causing still more atoms to decay, and causing a runaway chain reaction. The amount of heat created can be enormous, and can vaporize water to drive steam generators. How do you propose we convert this "nuclear energy" directly into electricity?
NASA does it in their deep space probes. Fuel cells convert heat to electricity. Thermo-electric. There may be otherways to produce copious amount of electrons. The key is in Research....
9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems.
-->> Parabolic solar concentrators are the least expensive solar power. Photovoltaics have always been expensive. Often the solar modules are augmented with a wind turbine for low-light days. Solar and wind for residential electricity are usually only economical off-grid, out in the boonies, where it would be more expensive to extend power lines from the utility to the home than to install solar.
The only one I was able to find is the Siemens Cells. They are very very expensive, since there is not much competition. In 1980 time frame, I met a proffessor at Univ of Colorado at the World Solar Conference. He and I worked out the details of how to produce solar cells in a continuous process. If I had the money, it would have been long since done and produced for worldwide consumption.
10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas.
-->> This is why I say that reducing energy consumption is the only way. Unfortunately people will refuse to acknowledge this TRUTH and will be forced to when the oil runs out. Oil reserves are finite. And you can't just start making your own fuel and expect to be driving the same car. Smaller cars, lower speeds, multiple fuels (ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel).
Reducing energy consumption means reducing population in a declining scale - because everytime one is born, there goes the energy demand. Even then, you will only expand the years a very short time. Tell that to the general public that they have to abort their baby, because we have to reduce the energy consumption. I do not think that is the answer.
Well, Paul Ehrlich prophesized the same thing back in the late 80s. What do you know. They come now for more beating from real world facts. Will they ever learn?
Just for fun (and real world information) take a look at:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/FossilFuels.html
Then tell me what do you think.
Besides. nuclear power is the way to go. Fission reactors showed to be amazingly safe, especially the new generation of fast breeders. Don't try to tell me I should remember Chernobyl, because the event has been grossly exaggerated. Don't think so? Then read:
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/concls17.html
and if you really know something about science then you'll agree with those people in Viena.
What about Three Mile Island? See this and learn the truth:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PsychoMeltdown.html
You really are scared of your own shadow, don't you? Come on, man, the world belongs to the brave of heart!
Zoidberg
07-07-02, 08:58 PM
Global Warming isn't a problem at all. If you think about it, during this planets history, this is one of the coldest period of time ever (The Ice Age is probably the coldest). When Dinosaurs were around, temperatures are estimated to be a lot higher than they are today, and the dinosaurs didn't even drive cars!!!
Parabolic solar concentrators are the <b>least expensive solar power</b>.
If you feel solar power is not expensive... Back in the late 70s Southern Calfornia Edison at Barstow, built a solar power station called <b>Solar One</b>. It covered 75 acres with one million square feet of computer-driven highly polished mirrors --11,818 mirrors in all-- reflecting sunlight onto a water tower 300 feet high. With some storage devices Solar One generated about <b>10 MegaWatts</b> of electricity at a cost of <b>$14,000 per installed kilowatt</b>. This was about <b>FIVE times more costly</b> than the most expensive nuclear plant.
Solar One worked for eight hours a day on summer, four hours in winter. Assuming nothing went wrong and the 11,818 mirrors remained clean (what a task!) it means Solar One was available for power production between <b>17 and 33% of the time</b>. Nuclear plants have an availability of 65 to 90% (as our Nuke station at Embalse, in Córdoba, Argentina), In other words, Solar One produced about <b>ONE percent</b> of the electricity of a nuclear or coal-fired plant, on five times more space and is available only a quarter of the day.
The total cost? About <b>EIGHT times more expensive</b>. Solar power is no bargain.
Just for the record: to construct a solar plant, the following amounts of material are needed: 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete (500 times more than for a nuclear plant), 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of chromium and titanium. Really, easily affordable for any Bolivian city...
<b>End of the story:</b> Solar One was seriously damaged by an explosion and fire on August 31, 1986, becuase the transformers were not insulated by PCBs (the EPA had banned them). The remains were auctioned for scrap salvage at about <b>$75,000</b>. The original cost = $14,000 per installed kilowatt multiplied gives a final price of <B>$14,000,000,000</B> (14 billion dolars), net loss= <B>$13, 999,925.000</B>. Taxpayers money, of course. Want to give it another try?
------------------
Zoidberg, you said it, old chap. Global Warming... What, me worry? (Alfred Neuman)
Fission development has been stalled by people who don't want it(gee, I wonder who). The propaganda says that breeding fuel, which is actually quite safe, is not. The publicity by greenpeace and other radical green groups as well as NIMBY have stalled the development of this resource. People don't know enough, so they turn to people who do. Unfortunately, many of these people twist the facts for thier own benefit(look at the ozone scare, global warming, there is a crapload of stuff).
Success_Machine
07-08-02, 02:39 PM
I'm not saying we should go solar, but solar concentrators are less expensive than photovoltaics. I DO NOT believe that Solar One cost $14 billion. That's the entire annual budget of NASA.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/troughnet/
========================================
The abiogenic theory of oil, or even the biogenic theory of oil, are irrelevant because we are using the stuff faster than it is being replenished. As time goes on it gets harder to get oil out of the wells. As such, reported reserves will last forever, but annual yields will eventually start declining, no matter how hard we try to pump more oil out. This phenomenon is called the Hubbert Peak, and has already occurred in about 50 countries around the world, including the United States and United Kingdom. Oil production in the US is down 34 percent since 1970, and continues to decline, forcing Americans to import more oil. The UK's North Sea oilfields are dropping much faster, with production peaking in 1998, and yields declining by 11 percent annually since then. By 2015 there will be no oil to speak of anywhere in the world except the Middle East. When their oilfields start to decline we're all in big trouble, if we aren't already. Many people predict, based on the estimated reserves remaining worldwide, and the behavior demonstrated by already-declining oilfields, that the world's oil supply will reach global Hubbert Peak around 2010, and drop steadily for decades after that. The oil will never run out, but supply (our ability to get oil out) will be harder, and harder, and harder to maintain. Even while supply lines are failing oil companies will still be reporting hundreds of billions of barrels of reserves, and people will be screaming for an explanation for massive increases in fuel prices. After a year or two, it will finally sink in, and I think SUVs will vanish off the streets, to be replaced initially by diesel Jettas, until people realize that they are gas hogs too, and that personal conveyances really need upwards of 200+ mpg to use renewable fuels effectively.
What are you going to do at night and in UK where it is almost always cloudy?
Originally posted by Success_Machine
I'm not saying we should go solar, but solar concentrators are less expensive than photovoltaics. I DO NOT believe that Solar One cost $14 billion. That's the entire annual budget of NASA.
The figure $14 billion comes from the data given by Southern California Edison Co. that Solar one had 10 Megawatts and it installed cost per <b>kilowatt</B> was $ 14.000. Just make your own maths.
There is a page for kids on solar power that could be interesting for you at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/renewable/solar.html but I found it a little simplisitc for my taste. It says solar power is great! I doubt it. Solar power is good for just very punctual situations, where taking electricity by means of high power lines there would be too costly, like a shack in the jungle. An Honda 5 kw portable generating plant costs $600 and will work 24 hours a day. I had one in the Bolivia Amazon and it served me well.
Some indians there (who can afford it) use solar panels with a 120 AMP truck battery for lighting their shacks with a 40 watts fluorescent tube, and a transistor radio too. It gives no power to run a refrigerator, though. So they have fridges running on kerosene or butane gas. They are good.
Success_Machine
07-09-02, 01:46 AM
I am extremely interested in the idea of a solar-powered factory that manufactures solar panels, self-sustaining I assume? Do you have more information?
Solar power is very unreliable. It would have to be big enough to be able to store enough power for nighttime and during cloudy days.
Success_Machine
07-09-02, 01:50 PM
Not necessarily. I'd assume that the normal work day is 8 am - 5 pm. Sometimes the sun wouldn't be shining, but if I chose a location like central Mexico, the sun would be available most of the time. Annual mean daily total global horizontal solar radiation for most of central Mexico is approximately 7 kWh per square meter, far superior to southern Ontario Canada, where I am now, and where the annual mean daily total global horizontal solar radiation is just 4 kWh per square meter. Thus by choosing the right location I could nearly double the operating hours of such a factory to produce cheap solar panels.
I am very interested in the continuous process for producing solar cells mentioned by kmguru, I you could elaborate I'd appreciate it.
A better idea would be to cover all the Sahara with solar panels.
And Australian deserts too.
Yes, but you'd have to spend money to actually send the electricity around the world. It would be too risky an investment for many companies.
Well it would be OK for Australia. Deserts in the centre, all the cities by the coasts. A pefect location.
For Sahara-> It could support the Mideterenian(sp) countries and probably more.
Later we might have no choice but to build these enormous solar plants, wen oil runs out.
And they are much safer for environment than nuclear plants, which are very hard to maintain.
Solar plants
pros: safe, don't pollute environment, infinite and free source of energy .
cons. take up much space (with sahara it should be no problem), expensive to built, you need much of them to make them efficient.
First raise some serious money (a few million dollars) to build the factory. The initial money should be used to do the detail design for such a factory. Then you have to do a secondary funding from investment banks and corporations. There are three ways , one can do a continuous process - Crystal, Amorphous, Polymer. We need to do some predesign work as to the cost and production to see which one would be the cheapest to produce.
Ah ha. I've just thought of a problem. With all this sand around, wouldn't they scratch the panels thus reducing its efficiency. Also, you'd spend a fortune paying people to actually polsh them every once and a while.
automatic polishers can be made. and about the sand....well you could build a nasty wind redirrection system that sweeps the sand off the panels. there are many possibilities...there even are some projects aleready (saw on discovery)
This project would cost untold millions. I'd estimate at least 100million to start with and a yearly budget afterwards. Its the way forwards, but for many companies, its the way back for their wallets.
Success_Machine
07-09-02, 03:57 PM
Firstly, I know little about how to make solar panels. But I am fairly certain that you have to melt silicon dioxide which takes alot of heat. Then dip in a sacrificial carbon electrode to strip off the oxygen, which takes electricity. The resulting ingots of pure silicon must be annealed to form monocrystalline microstructure, then cut into thin wafers, and this takes heat and electricity. Then thin layers of metal are deposited on the wafers to form electrical p-n junction, followed by antireflective coatings, etc. etc.
The factory would have to manufacture both polished metal reflectors and photovoltaic materials. It seems that you would have to start small, making raw materials and forming them into these two distinct types of solar equipment. Gradually you could expand, making sure you have a surplus to sell and cover the cost of repairs to tooling, lathes, saws, torches, welding equipment. That is until you can make that stuff too.
The energy is free, so if you can tap into it effectively, why can't a solar module factory be self-reproducing?
Solar energy is like a child, crippled since birth. We love him, care for him, would do anything to make him happy in life. We'll spend lots of money in specialized training and fitting programs, encourage him to participate in "special people" tournaments. But deep in our hearts we know he will never get a Gold Medal in the Olympics.
It is possible to produce electricity from sunlight if --and here is a big "<b>IF</b>" --all you need is a few watts, not kilowatts or megawatts, and only if you are willing to pay exorbitant prices for it. Solar cells are vastly used in satellites (although not for deep space probes that use small nuclear reactors). Solar cells are useful for powering sensors, repeaters, beacons, and recording devices in remote and inaccessible places. But for high demand of power as house appliances, industries, or cities, solar power <b>is not an alternative</b>. Why not? Because, to begin with, sunlight is <b>diffuse</b>. To use it as a source of electricity, you must first collect and concentrate it. Two analogies will help us to illustrate the point.
First: suppose you wish to boil a pot of water and all you have is a bunch of matches. No matter how many millions matches you have, the water cannot be heated to boiling by holding them, one by one, under the pot. The heat applied is too diffuse. Even burning all the matches at once will not do the trick. There is simply not enough heat concentrated <b>for a long enough time</b>. Just plain physics. To achieve the required temperature, concentrated energy must be used, such as produced by igniting burning material, wood, coal, charcoal, gas or oil.
The other analogy is the one I like most, for it dramatically illustrates the importance of <b>concentrated energy</b>. In biology there is a term, <b>"biomass"</b>, which refers to the total amount of living material in any body or collection of living things. Thus, you can compare the biomass equivalent of different species; for example, there is the same biomass in the body of <b>one elephant</b> as there is in <b>100 million fleas</b>. Now, if you need to pull a very heavy load, would you rather harness one elephant or 100 million fleas? Provided, of course, that someone builds 100 million flea harnesses at a price you can afford, and provided, of course, that you can make all those fleas hop at the same time and in the same direction.
This explains the trouble with solar power. It is difusse and, like the fleas, is is difficult and expensive to organize and concentrate. At best --that is, at noon on a sunny day-- sunlight strikes the earth with an energy of about 1 kilowatt per square meter. There is no way to make the sun shine hotter or to collect more energy from sunlgiht, except to capture the one Kw/m2 from a <b>very large area</b>. Therefore, solar collectors are needed. You can build them with mirrors or lenses, but these must be installed with small motors -computer driven- so they can tilt and rotate and be kept in position with relation to the sun as the earth turns on its axis. And this is <b>extremely expensive</b>. Solar stations would normally cost from five to eight times more than a nuclear station with similar power output. Maintenance costs are terrible: it gives you electricity five times more expensive than nuclear.
What about photovoltaics? They are truly high-tech, and considerable energy is requried for their manufacture, their construction also requires toxic materials from cadmium to hydrofluoric acid. This, together with the large maintenance problem involved in keeping the colletors, mirrors, lenses, and solar cells free from dust, greasy films, and snow, combines to make solar power <b>one of the least safe ways to generate electricity</b>. (Cohen, Bernard, L., 1983, "The Solar Dream", Chapter 9, in "Before It's Too Late", <i>Plenum Publishing</i>, New York). To supply the 7,000 MegaWatts required, New York City would need at least <b>350 square miles</b> of solar cells, <b>an area larger than the city itself.</b> Extend that for all cities in the US and you'll have very little space left for agriculture. Or you can build the panels on top of the cities and live forever in the shade. Does this not appeal to you? Think you'll be protected against UV rays that the Ozone Hole in Anarctica is sending to the US via Federal Express.
So, balancing all the facts, we see that the only reasonable thing to do is going nuclear, either fission or fussion. What are we waiting for? Without doubt, today's nuclear power reactors are clean and safe, but the questions persists: Are they safe enough? How safe is safe enough"? How is safety judged? And by whom? If engineered safety --that is, multiple, redundant backup systems or "defense in depth"-- is safe, how much enhancement is needed? How much is wanted? Or warranted? At what point the cost of yet another marginal increment in safety be considered?
It is interesting to note that in our society, $200,000 is spent annually on safety improvements to save a single life in a car accident --where 50,000 deaths occurr each year. But in the nuclear industry $2 billion is spent yearly <b>to save one life, even though there have been no fatalities.</b> What else do we need to start building nuclear stations again?
Something else needs to be mentioned in this about solar cells that I have not seen mentioned. The output of these cells is in DC (direct current). To store this electricity you must use batteries. Wet cells. Now you can use the standard car battery but it is not very effecient. Futher the deep charging that is required for the batteries means that the normal wet battery will not last very long before needing replacement. Most sites that use solar cells store in cadium cells. This because the cadium cells last longer with the deep charge/discharge requirement. They are considerably larger and more expensive than the standard battery. I won't go into the disposal methods for hazardous substances within.
Nickel metalhydride is a better alternative. While cycle life is said to be similar, in practice, Ni-MH lasts longer than Ni-Cd
Advantages of the Nickel-Metal Hydride Cell
The three major benefits of the nickel-metal hydride cells to designers of portable electrical and electronic products are:
1. Improved energy density (up to 40 percent greater than nickel-cadmium cells) which can be translated into either longer run times from existing batteries or reductions in the space necessary for the battery.
2. Elimination of the constraints on cell manufacture, usage, and disposal imposed because of concerns over cadmium toxicity.
3. Simplified incorporation into products currently using nickel cadmium cells because of the many design similarities between the two chemistries.
More... (http://data.energizer.com/batteryinfo/application_manuals/nickel_metal_hydride.htm)
Originally posted by Edufer
It is interesting to note that in our society, $200,000 is spent annually on safety improvements to save a single life in a car accident --where 50,000 deaths occurr each year. But in the nuclear industry $2 billion is spent yearly <b>to save one life, even though there have been no fatalities.</b> What else do we need to start building nuclear stations again?
That is perhaps because, 99.9% people do not understand what is nuclear powerplant. They all equate nuclear with Hirosima or nuclear bomb in their mind. So even educated people and people who have taken physics still say - "ya, but..." to anything one says on nuclear.
That is human nature for you. Our earth is powered by a nuclear generator to create the magnetic field that protects us all.
Anyway, Nuclear to electricity is the way to go. If I have the time and can get a permit, I am sure I can design a major power system that does not use steam turbines to generate power.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/RTGs1.gif
I would like to note that the reactors on space probes use a device called a thermocouple to generate the electricity. These are not much better that photovoltiac cells in efficiency. Where is geothermal? Much more practical.
Where is geothermal? Much more practical.
Never mind trying to harness volcanos, so let's go to "practical". What is practical? Practical things are those with a good cost/benefit balance. The difficulties for making utilities or devices capable of using geothermal power, and the costs involved makes this alternative not practical.
As with wind, solar or tide power, they are limited only to very specific uses. Really that's too bad. Nothing could be better to profit from solar power, or winds, or "solfataras".
But, alas, that seems to be impossible, until now I mean. (try to harness Old Faithfull in Yellowstone and see what happens). So until technologies give us something better, the urgencies nowadays point us to one direction: Nuclear.
Thanks Edufer.
Everybody is a power engineer thesedays....the word is, if you can change the car battery, you are one...and if you can change the alternator - you are an expert....ready to make the policy decision of the planet....right?
Talk about the fate of 6 billion people residing on a few backyard mechanics....
You are welcomed, kmguru. This thing of people with nothing more than a 6th grade education thinking they can "save the planet" would be ridiculous --<b>if it were not tragic</b>. Billions of lives depend on the right decisions when it comes to pass laws and regultations trying to achive the utopical "zero risk".
And this is worsened by many scientists that can never simply say: "I don't know". And the worst of all is the fact that politicians think scientists can always give accurate answers to any scientific matter.
By the way, have you visited our website at http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html ? I have been giving it a new face, adding some "Flash" features that makes loading much faster. In the next days I'll be inaugurating a new page about the Amazon jungle with many pictures. I've upgraded the site to 100 Mbytes (with satitistics that show a rate of 4,700 unique visitors every month since January) Nor bad for a $10 website. ;)
Edufer, I have not visited your site recently...but will do so after my posts. I think, you have a gold mine there with your website. Now, you need to promote that within your country (among media and politics) to solve some problems that your country faces. I will be happy to contribute how a system and infrastructure can be setup to improve the economy. But it will be in English and you or some one has to translate it into your language.
Anyway, people do not realize that the Nobel Prize winner in literature commenting as an expert (perception) on movement of nuclear materials to Nevada.
Kmguru, I was the head of the Technical Translations Department at AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada LTD) in 1983-84 while building and commissioning of our nuclear reactor at Embalse, province of Cordoba. After the Canadians went home, I refused to accept a position at the building of the Mesa Verde Nuclear station in Mexico. (I regret it, now).
Instead I was trasferred to CONARCAN. a Canadian-Argentinean consortium that built the hydrological complex of Piedra del Aguila and Michihuao dams in Patagonia. My interest in the environment and all the scientific frauds around it date from that time, when I was dealing with facts and real world situations and confronting them against all the hype about the environment. Once you start your journey down the quest for scientific proofs and truths, there is no going back.
I 'll be waiting for your ideas. Thanks you, very much.
Success_Machine
07-12-02, 03:38 AM
No one can be an expert in every subject, rather no one can have esoteric (rare) knowledge of many different subjects. And yet someone has to pull it all together. Fortunately most things do not require esoteric knowledge, and knowledge of science & math can act as a useful BS filter.
Math is really important too, consider the most recent BS I've uncovered.... this article on quantum computing is an example of science being used to promote certain types of research, when there is no foundation to support it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/011220/011220-2.html
A related site gives a description of the mathematics:
http://www.imsa.edu/~matth/cs299/node23.html
I am not an expert in either physics, computer science, or math but I was able to figure out that they needed 12-13 qubits to do what they claimed to have achieved with just 7 qubits. This is an example where almost no one would question the experts, especially since it was confirmed by experiment !!! And yet it is obvious to me that the results were fabricated. I have suspicions as to how this might happen too, but these publications are really a means to an end for an aspiring PhD candidate, rather than a real source of knowledge. And if they can get away with it in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal like Nature, imagine what crap gets into the newspapers these days!
I'm smart, I'm representative, and I have dreams and goals to pursue. Someone has to pull it all together. If the experts won't do it, then why not me ?
I'll tell you what else I see: I see oil reserves running out, based on 95% probabilities, NOT the 5% probabilities of recoverable oil that experts use. More than that I see a likely solution to the problem, but people with money are "keepin the funk alive" so to speak, driving cars that get less than 200 mpg fuel economy. Non-renewable MEANS non-renewable. Like a non-renewable club membership, or $20 prepaid debit card, when the expiration date comes, that's all folks! When the Hubbert Peak comes it's gonna get nasty on the highways, cause there's going to be people who still have money who want to drive their big autos, while everyone else switches to cargo-proportional transportation, like motorized bicycles & tricycles with airflow fairings, and maybe two-wheeled trailers for cargo.
I was subscribed to both online newsletters by <B>Nature</B> magazine and <B>Science</B> magazine. I have cancelled them because I have not found there nothing really interesting to me. Of course there is a lot of good material on bioloogy and medicine that is useful for scientists in deep research.
But for general matters, the news that are published there are mostly following the political agenda of globalization. I could be wrong, of course, but that has been my impression for the last two or three years.
Originally posted by Thor
This project would cost untold millions. I'd estimate at least 100million to start with and a yearly budget afterwards. Its the way forwards, but for many companies, its the way back for their wallets.
A single oil platform can cost up to 1 billion to build and untold millions to run over it's lifetime. However, it is expected to return 10 times that cost in revenue and, so, is deemed worth it.
The cost of the project is not the issue -- it's a question of return on investment. If the ROI is big enough, the project would be funded.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.